Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Uche writes: "Biologists at the University of California, San Diego have uncovered the first genetic evidence that explains how large-scale alterations to body plans were accomplished during the early evolution of animals."

Evolution is part of life's process, it goes on regardless of human conceit. I don't know what you mean by "few people die." Last I checked we can all plan on dying. The human death rate is at 100%, as always; it just takes longer than it used to.

Jerry Springer's audience aside, the genetically fit are more likely to pass their genes on, and their offspring are more likely to survive. What makes an individual genetically more or less fit may or may not match your notions of genetically inferior or superior, but that is irrelevant.

Evolution is part of life's process, it goes on regardless of human conceit.

Ummm, no. There was once on this planet several species of humans living concurrently. Homo Sapiens destroyed all competing species (unless you subscribe to the Bigfoot theory).

It is Homo Sapiens' drive ('conceit' in your terms) that won out.

There is little chance of any major evolution for us unless we colonize other worlds and evolve there to adapt to that specific environment. That or we so polute our own environment that it takes extroadinary measures to adapt.

I don't mean to infer that that humans are immune to evolution, just that the kind of evolution mentioned in the article is impossible for our species.

Yes, human evolution can and will occur, most likely along the path you describe. But there will be no major shift. It will be a slow process, even on evolutionary terms. You won't find humans suddenly sprouting six fingers because five is no longer enough.

We are already domesticated. A key indicator of domestication is neotany--retaining the characteristics of youth. The flatter human face with the bulging skull makes us look much more like babies, and also giver room for a larger brain. The human jaw is shrinking, and canines becoming much blunter than in ape. (Generally--mine look like a baboons, which is a real pain if I bite my lip)

"Intelligence creates material success, which is a prize factor for breeding."

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. People who are wealthier tend to have fewer children, later, than people who aren't. True, this is a cultural trend, and will probably reverse itself. Otherwise we'll end up in Kornbluth's world of the _Marching Morons_.

"Human beings will continue to become... probably taller"

I could be wrong, but I don't think people are evolving to become taller. I believe that all the increases in height (fairly recent, and much to rapid to be evolutionary) are due to better diet. This is an environmental change allowing a fuller expression of genetic potential for height, not a genetic evolutionary change tht will be passed down to our descendents.

On the contrary, i believe evolution is happening as we speak. but not on the scale of humans growing tales and fFeathers.

no, i'm thinking more about the sort of evolution on a cellular and microbiological level. the average american can eat all the carcenogens in a mcdonalds burger and coke. a previous human fFrom even a century ago probably wouldnt have the rigid stomach to handle a fFrench fFry.

more, we are presently using chemical fFertilizers to grow our fFood. previously these same chemicals would cause immediate poisoning and mass concers. today we are as a race more immune to these things.

the precedent example is when the europeans came to the new world, and brought malaria, polio and chicken pox -- which wiped out entire native american communities. today however, chicken pox is something or a rite of passage fFor 6-8 all year olds.

evolution hasnt stopped.. we just arent thinking of the right kind of evolution.

Yes, yes, fascists made use of evolutionary theory to support their arguments. And Hitler was a vegetarian. And Wagner loved classical music. And Torquemada was a God-fearing Christian, as of course were a significant majority of the German, Ukrainian, Polish and Russians who between them committed millions of antisemitic acts in the first half of the 20th century. You'll bite yourself on the ass if you use that line of reasoning. There are a long list of reasons for the lethal efficiency of the Shoah, including mechanisation, the developments of lethal methods that took place in WWI, the efficiency of German bureaucracy, the visceral hatred of Jews common in many European countries, the development of industrial methods and the rise of large industrial companies, hyper-inflationary economic collapse and the consequent search for a scapegoat, and the excellence of German built railways. Darwinism is a long way down the list. Please, go read "The Last of the Just" and stop co-opting Jewish suffering to your petty cause.

Are you sure there was breading going on? Honestly, I more think of it as like... a muffin or something. Sure, bread has yeast, and so do... (we'll not go there), but, well.. it's just too big. I definitely think a muffin is more along the line of what you're thinking about.

> Isn't it funny how that bible states that the earth is round? and this was written in the bible when the earth was still considered to be flat.
Isn't that interesting? Think about it... Now, how on earth could that get into the bible? And it wasnt by pure chance, unlike the theory of evolution which depends puerly on chance.

There are a few possible answers to this. If I felt contrary, I could say that the "Earth=round" was inserted into the Bible after the fact. Maybe it was a lucky guess. Perhaps it really was divine inspiration. The point is that it's not compelling evidence that it's divine inspiration. Oh, and evolution doesn't rely solely on chance. That's an extreme oversimplification, usually only used when one is trying to "straw-man" the theory.

> People are so gullable these days. Because some scientist somehere says something, everyone believes it, without question.

No argument here, although I'd extend it to anyone with a real or perceived claim to authority or expertise.

> How can you predict what happend some 12 billion years ago? The weather is bearly accurate to more than one day, and yet evolutionists claim they know what was in the earths atmosphere billions of years ago.

You have a skewed idea of the definition of "predict" if you think one needs to predict the past. The reason the weather long ago is better known than the weather tomorrow is that the long ago has already happened. Scientists can tell what the Earth's climate was like long ago by seeing the evidence of its effects. When meteorologists predict the weather, they're merely taking what they have and extrapolating educated guesses.

> When Charles Darwin came up with the theory of Evolution, not only did the world not believe it, but neither did he. As i see it, the theory of evolution was made up to create a substitute belief to creation.

Whether he believed in it or not is irrelevant to whether it's consistent with the evidence. And, as I see it, it was put forward as a theory to explain biological diversity in the Galapagos Islands.

> People dont want to believe that there is a being somwhere in the heavens that is superior to them, a being that created them and the universe. This being is able to create the universe, and all that is in it, from giant starts, to microscopic life in six days.

Based on the fact that 95% of the world believes in said higher power, I'd say that people do want to believe in a higher power.

> People dont understand how this is possible, and so they create a theory, which allows them to deceive themselves into thinking that they are the superior being. They dont want to have to submit to the one and only true God, they want to do their own thing, which is evil.

Apologies, but this is just nonsense. Firstly, nobody who follows the theory of the origin of the species thinks they they are the controlling factor in that origin, so your claims they they're thinking they are the superior being is incorrect. Second, "the one and only true God" is not science, it's religion, so it can't be applied to the theory of origins in any meaningful way.

> I'm not providing much scientific evidence here for creation, but, any critical person, should be able to see that the theory of evolution is only a THEORY.

You seem to imply that because it's a theory, that it's necessarily wrong. The theory of relativity is also considered a theory, but it has stood up to much experimentation. "Theory" means "not yet proven" but should not be extrapolated to mean incorrect. It's more appropriate to say that theories are incomplete.

> How can we, who dont even understand life, who cant create life in a controlled enviroment, claim that life came about by chance?

There are two points here. First, nobody on Earth can explain why gravitation works. Nobody knows the reason why massive bodies attract one another. To say, however, that this means we can't discuss gravitation in a meaningful way is just silly. We discuss gravity by examining its effects on our universe. We discuss evolution the same way.

Second, I don't personally know anybody who claims that life "came about by chance", and this is the classic straw man argument about evolutionary theory. All this statement demonstrates is that you haven't actually read or studied the theory, because your statement demonstrates gross misunderstanding of the mechanisms of evolution. I won't go into the gory details unless you wish me to do so, but suffice it to say you're badly misinterpreting evolutionary theory, and it ruins your argument.

> With all of our intelligence, we have not been able to create life in a lab, and this is with inteligent input. There was no intelligent input in the theory of evolution. Just chance.

Refer to my statements above about incomplete understanding, and about the "evolution=chance" argument. I will add here that not being able to create life in a lab has no bearing to this discussion, because it assumes that because we haven't done it yet, we never will, and because we don't understand it now, we never can. A mere one hundred years ago, nobody could build a heavier-than-air flying machine, or a computer, or a television, or any of a thousand other things. We learn. It's what we do best.

The same way that you refute the proof about evolution can be used to refute the proof of your
religous beliefs.

No, because science and religion are two different things -- there's the philosophy of scientific reasoning (outlined in Karl Popper's works), and there's religious faith. People who mix science with religion or religion with science are equally wrong.

Both are built upon faith.

And that's precisely what's wrong with Darwin's theories. He observed certain phenomena in nature, and based on what he knew about artificial selection, he speculated that similar processes must occur naturally.

However, he didn't know and didn't have the means to discover the mechanisms underlying the hypothesized natural selection. That's why his theory is not scientific -- it's a pure speculation, but it doesn't provide mechanisms, which can be falsified experimentally -- something essential to modern science.

For example, if I declare that natural selection is governed by some process on molecular level, describe the process and design an experiment which shows whether my hypothesis is correct, I'd be following a perfectly scientific route of reasoning. But all this Darwinists are not doing. What they are doing is mixing science with their beliefs. And this is wrong, m'kay?

The biologist have known about these regulatory genes for years, so that is not the big news here. The big news is that they could pinpoint the mutaution that turned one kind of animal into an other.

This fits nicely with Stephen J. Goulds theory of "stasis" evolution, in where when environment is more or less stable animals don't seem to evolve at all for millions of years but when there is drastic changes in the environment the animals evolve very quickly (in geological timeframe). The fact that the mechanism for inducing quick and major changes in the animals physiology in short time supports this theory.

Another reason to consider the "Humans Are No Longer Evolving" as bogus. Humans, in this particular environment, are in the process of homoginiznig the gene pool, sure.

But when the environment radically changes, such as when people are finally allowed to spread into space, there will be -- In fact there MUST BE -- adaptation to the new environment in order to thrive. Imagine the stress of giving birth to a female who had bone loss due to long-term zero-G. Only people with lower bone loss, or lower birth stress, would be able to give birth.

Technology helps aleviate the need to evolve, as anyone who is alive and would without tech be dead can attest. I don't believe this will stop the process, it just becomes another factor.

OpenSource'ing the Human Genom would be wonderful too. Imagine finally being able to fix the idiocy of the human eye, for example. To pull the connector to a sensor grid out through the front, and then compensate for the blind spot through software, is definately in need of fixing. This becomes evolution, the creation of destiny.

100 years back, if you were diabetic, asthmatic, blind, deaf, had severe allergies, etc, then you didn't get to breed - in fact you were lucky if you lived past childhood. Back another 100 years, and short-sightedness would be a major problem. These days, those illnesses are curable through modern drugs, so sufferers can continue their line. We can already see the end result in humans today - more people require eyesight correction, more people have asthma and similar problems, etc. Generally the human race is getting a frailer immune system and is producing less accurate copies of the "standard".

I'm not advocating eugenics here to get a "pure race" back!:-) It's just the way it goes. If it's possible through medicine for people with genetic disorders (eg. born blind, or with a genetic predisposition to asthma, short sight or cancer) to survive and have kids, when previously they would not have been able, then those genetic disorders get passed down the line.

Note that if you took the medicine away, the human race (at least the Western version) would become an extremely unstable system and many people would die. This is a good example of a naturally-unstable system being kept in stability by an external control system.

In other words, in the last ~1000 or so years, the fitness function has changed. Traits that were previously fatal are now merely inconvienient, whereas other traits that were once beneficial may now have less utility.

As you said, it's the way the system works. There is no "fittest" ideal that all life is striving for. There's merely the "fittest now" and that keeps changing.

On the one hand, it's undeniable that if people with concrete, measurable genetic defects were not allowed to reproduce, then the occurence of these defects in future generations would be reduced and perhaps even eliminated.

Actually, no... and the reason is simple. Most genetic diseases are the result of one of three things: receiving multiple copies of recessive traits that individually have survival benefits (sickle cell anemia, for instance), receiving recently broken copies of genes/chromosomes (Down's syndrome), or receiving broken genes that do not generally manifest until after typical reproductive years (genetically linked hypertension or genetically enhanced risk of breast cancer, for example). There is no evolutionary pressure on any of these types of genetic abnormalities that will make them go away: it is well known that recessive traits are nearly impossible to "breed out" of a population, because that requires that no one with the trait be allowed to reproduce; recently broken gentic material will continue to arise, as long as we reproduce, even if we could start out with a hypothetical "perfect genome"; and traits that don't reduce reproductive potential can not be acted on directly by evolutionary pressure.

No, in the long term, there is no chance that "genetic diseases" can be suppressed by preventing those that have them from reproducing. You can also think of it this way: we've been breeding now, under evolutionary pressure, for nearly 2million years, something like 100,000 generations, and genetic diseases are just as prevalent today as they were in the past; since many of them are fatal without treatments that have only been available for one or two generations, by your logic, shouldn't they have been bred out of the population long ago?

This doesn't argue against treatment, mind you, for those who are stricken with these diseases, just that such treatment will never "breed out" the vast majority of genetic diseases out there.

The point that genetic defects that typically do not manifest themselves until after typical reproductive years cannot be bred out through "classic" eugenics is well taken. Good point.

Throw that one on top of the pile of moral aguments against "classic" eugenics, which it seems we agree is infeasible.

But doesn't this argue _for_ a genetic "repair" process style of eugenics? IE, assuming we have identified the genes for things like genetic hypertension or genetic predisposition to cancer, those genes would be snipped out and replaced with benign material as part of the reproduction (or perhaps pre-natal) process.

It seems the only way that defects that lack a natural deslection process can be weeded out.

Yes, certain things like sickle-cell anemia (which brings resistance to malaria), as I recall) are harder to judge in absolute terms as "defects" or "benefits" - it doesn't matter. Eliminate the set of all straightforward "bad" traits and we're all ahead. "Perfect" is the enemy of "good enough" or "better".

Evolution is accepted as fact by scientists and thinking people. It is no more or less a theory than physics or astronomy.

Many details of evolution are not understood, particularly the genetic mechanisms. This new discovery helps answer some of those questions, but it doesn't make evolution any more "real" than it already is. It's possible we haven't discovered every moon or even every planet in our solar system, but that doesn't mean the sun may actually revolve around the earth after all. We're pretty sure we haven't found all of the subatomic particles, and we still don't agree on what makes gravity, but physics is still secure and we don't expect the Red Sea to part on its own.

Accepting Creationism means tossing out all of established science. Creationism is the adversary of all science, not just Darwinian evolution.

In science there is no fact.
Any scientific theory is still theory, and you can only disprove something. Evidence towards is the counterbalance, and readily accepted in mainstream science as poular science. It took 200 years for anyone to start believing darwin, and his theory is quite simple and makes 'sense'.
Genetics and environment working in conjunction, influencing each other, random mutations selected out, hey presto, new species.

Not quite. Fact: Charles Darwin was born in 1809. The Origin of Species was first published in 1859. People started believing it right away. By 1925 the matter was already in U.S. Courts (the Scopes "Monkey Trial").

It's also not true that scientific method only allows for disproving a theory. Duplicating an experiment or obtaining corroborating evidence bolsters a theory.

> Gathering more evidence bolsters a theory in an inductive reasoning sense, but in the framework above, you can only prove for sure that theories are false.

True enough, but that's how all science works. You gather up all the hypotheses that claim to explain the available evidence, apply Occam's Razor, and go with the result until new evidence demands otherwise.

And while the result isn't 'true' in the same sense as a mathematical theorem or a boolean variable, on the big scale it seems to work very well in practice. Yes, we twiddle the details all the time, but big theories like the heliocentric solar system, gravity, atomic theory, evolution, etc. seem to stand the test of time. The only one I can think of that has undergone substantial revision after general acceptance is the replacement of Newtonian physics with Einsteinian relativity, and even that was nothing more than extending a specific case to a more general framework.

When creationists argue that "evolution is just a theory" they reveal first that they don't understand basic science, and second that they don't have anything constructive to offer toward an explanation of the universe.

I'm not quite sure that's true. For example, there are observations, which I would say are "facts". For example: "This table is brown". Of course, you could get very philosophical and start discussing what it means to be brown, and so forth, but at that point I think you're nitpicking.

Actually, there are some legitimate nitpicks here. Hanson (1958) and Kuhn (1962) argued that empirical observations are 'theory-laden' and that scientists see the world through paradigmatic world views, respectively. Which is to say that one's theory influences what one observes or interprets his or her observations. These philosophers were not just skeptics -- they were influenced by the gestalt and 'new look' psychological theories of visual perception.

Some of the best evidence for the subjectivity of even empirical observations comes from cases where seemingly sober scientists 'saw' things that their theories told them were there but which actually do not exist. Some quotes:

"During the seventeenth century, when their research was guided by one or another effluvium theory, electricians repeatedly saw chaff particles revound from, or fall off, the electrified bodies that had attracted them. At least that is what seventeenth-century observers said they saw, and we have no more reason to doubt their reports of perception than our own." (p. 117, Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. (3rd Ed.) Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.)

"In 1903 Rene Blondlot claimed to have discovered a new kind of ray, instances of which were recorded and investigated by a large number of eminent French scientists. Outside France interest in N-rays waned when it was reported by the American physicist R. W. Wood that during a visit to Blondlot's laboratory he surreptitiously removed from the apparatus an essential prism. Despite the secret sabotage of his equipment, Blondlot still reported seeing the effects of the N-rays." (p. 120 of Bird, A. (2000). Thomas Kuhn. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.)

"There have been cases in the history of science in which skilled scientists of the highest repute have 'seen' or 'verified', through observation and experiment, the prediction of some hypothesis, even though this prediction subsequently turned out not to correspond to reality and could not be reproduced by other observers. For example, Sir William Herschel (1738-1822), discoverer of the planet Uranus, the father of John Herschel and the most famous astronomer of the eighteenth century, was able with the powerful telescopes he manufactured to resolve into individual stars several nebulae that had previously appeared to be milky luminous patches in the sky. In the mid 1780s, he conjectured that all nebulae were composed of individual stars so that none were made of a luminous fluid. In 1790 he did observe a nebula that he was forced to interpret as a central star surrounded by a cloud of luminous fluid. In the interim period, however, Herschel claimed to resolve into individual stars both the Orion and Andromeda nebulae. In fact, though, Orion is a gaseous cloud containing a continuous distribution of matter, not just individual stars, while Andromeda is a galaxy of stars." (p. 10 of Cushing, J. T. (1997). Philosophical concepts in physics: The historical relation between philosophy and scientific theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.)

Really, what scientific property makes Creationism comparable to a scientific theory, evolution? You are feedining the nonscientific minds by taking it seriously. Evolution is a well established scientific theory, we don't need more evidence for it as long as there is no other scientific theory contradicts with evolution and explains the evidence accumulated so far just as well as evolution. There is no such theory at the moment; there might be one in the future, but I doubt it will contradict ourcurrent understanding of evolution in a big way. It will probably be something like we discover our understaning of evolution is wrong on details, not on fundementals, like the case with relativility and Newtonian mechanics. This has been the case for almost all well-established scientific ideas. They never turned out to be completly incorrect, just wrong on details.

Wake up US people, you are just helping the superstition by making comparisons between a logical, scientific theory and a superstition. They are not even apples and oranges, they are apples and fiends.

"we don't need more evidence for it as long as there is no other scientific theory contradicts with evolution"

"We don't NEED more evidence"???!!!

That depends on what you goals are, I guess. If you are looking to justify your beliefs, then I can understand why you wouldn't see the need for any more evidence. If you are actually interested in understanding the universe, then you will need all the "extra" evidence you can get. Even though their have been hundreds of prior scientists to do so, physicists still do experiments to determine (and verify past measurments of) such fundamental constants as the speed of light or the universal gravitational constant. They don't need the evidence to justify their pet theory. They need the evidence to improve their model of the universe. Similarlly, biologists need more evidence. They don't need it to disprove another theory that contradicts the present one... but they need it to FIND that next theory. Science isn't about resting on your laurels (or more likely, somebody elses hard earned laurels) and bragging to the world that evolution (or whatever) is right and they are wrong and daring them to prove different. It is about a large scale, organized, search for a better understanding of how things work.

"They never turned out to be completly incorrect, just wrong on details."

Yeah, that spontaneous generation theory was just a little wrong on the details. And luminiferous ether... that was almost spot on, wasn't it. It is certainly not possible for some modern theory like superstring theory to be compeletly incorrect. Get off your (*^&^%& "high horse". I am not championing creationism; but the idea that we don't need new evidence for scientific theories and that science is just about pinning down the details with no more room for radical new developments is a stupid and dangerous view to be propogating.

The good news is, I agree with you. The bad news is, my agreement doesn't mean what you think it does. I am a fervent practicing Christian. Creationism is the belief that the first two chapters of Genesis, which contain two seperate and conflicting creation accounts, are a comprehensive accounting of the beginning of everything.

My problems with creationism are primarily religious in nature, and while I'll extend an open offer to explain it further, suffice it to say that these reasons have to do with misuse of the scripture itself. It is comparable to one trying to use the Mona Lisa as wallpaper. Finding it to be lacking sufficient size for the task, and believing that its use as wallpaper is of dire importance, the frustrated decorator proceeds to separate the threads of the canvas in an absurd attempt to spread the painting enough to cover the walls. What you wind up with is a destroyed painting, and a lot of discordant threads glued to your walls.

I know that is a bizzare analogy, and it's intended to be. It features a great work of art shredded by an attempt to misuse it, and a purpose so divergent from common sense as to defy any concept of mental health. There are several things very wrong with the situation described in the analogy. The work is of great value. Genesis is of great value as an expression of truth. Although one might take my analogy to mean that Genesis is simply a work of art, I hold it to be transcendent to art. The attempt to force the painting to function as wallpaper seems a ghastly perversion of its actual worth. To expect Genesis to serve as a comprehensive description of creation, when that expectation is fundamentally denied by the book itself, is a ghastly perversion of its actual worth.

This means that while it is ridiculous to purport that Genesis is a comprehensive work of explanation, it is equally ridiculous to dismiss it because it can't be used as wallpaper, or to make the claim that those who appreciate the Mona Lisa oppose wall coverings.

So consider well when you foist the banner of the latest discovery, believing it to be the death knell of religion, that there might be somebody like me who can look through his telescope at the Galilean moons, and laugh that someone was once imprisoned by the church for doing so.

Just because something is irreducably complex *now* does not mean it was irreducably complex at the point at which the crucial beneficial change was made which allows the current behaviour.

Evolution can break down a complex interaction of simple non-necessary "actors" into a simpler interaction of necessary "actors", as easily as it can produce the extra "actors" in the first place.

Evolution is the process of harmonisation of an organism to its natural surroundings, with the additional constraint of fitness. "Fitness" can mean dumping things that aren't necessary because you can do the job easier another way now.

An example, your appendix: At one point it was presumably useful (perhaps even necessary). Now it's an atrophying organ with no discernable purpose, or side-effects when removed.

So, in summary, the author makes the assumption of linear progress in time. This is a false premise, and his argument therefore does not hold. To get from A to B, evolution (remember, this is random chance followed by population migration) could might easily go A,G,F,E,D,C,B.

Behe's empty box"Behe's colossal mistake is that, in rejecting these possibilities, he concludes that no Darwinian solution remains. But one does. It is this: An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become-because of later changes-essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required."

"The point is there's no guarantee that improvements will remain mere improvements. Indeed because later changes build on previous ones, there's every reason to think that earlier refinements might become necessary. The transformation of air bladders into lungs that allowed animals to breathe atmospheric oxygen was initially just advantageous: such beasts could explore open niches-like dry land-that were unavailable to their lung-less peers. But as evolution built on this adaptation (modifying limbs for walking, for instance), we grew thoroughly terrestrial and lungs, consequently, are no longer luxuries-they are essential. The punch-line is, I think, obvious: although this process is thoroughly Darwinian, we are often left with a system that is irreducibly complex. I'm afraid there's no room for compromise here: Behe's key claim that all the components of an irreducibly complex system 'have to be there from the beginning' is dead wrong."

[b]The Fallacy of Conclusion by Analogy[/b]

When it comes to explaining science to the public, analogies and metaphors are essential tools of the trade. We all can better understand something new and unusual, when it is compared to something we already know: a cell is like a factory, the eye is like a camera, an atom is like a billiard ball, a biochemical system is like a mouse trap. An A is like a B, means A shares some conceptual properties with B. It does not mean A has all the properties of B. It does not follow that what is true for B is therefore true for A. Analogies can be used to explain science, but analogies cannot be used to draw conclusions or falsify scientific theories. Yet Behe commits this fallacy throughout his book.

For example:

[ol][li]A mousetrap is "irreducibly complex" - it requires all of its parts to work properly.
[li]A mousetrap is a product of design.
[li]The bacterial flagellum is "irreducibly complex" - it requires all of its parts to work properly.
[li]Therefore the flagellum is like a mouse trap.
[li]Therefore the flagellum is a product of design.

To be honest, I suspect that the extent of detail Behe is demanding would require a combination cutting-edge biochemistry lab and a time machine. How else can science fully recover, for example, every single step in the evolution of the bacterial flagellum that took place billions of years ago?

Review of Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box (1998)For those who have not already encountered this book or one of its numerous reviews, let me simply say that the author sets out to argue that the organic world is so complex, particularly at the level of molecular biology and biochemistry, that Darwinian evolution cannot possibly have led to it. As evolution cannot produce irreducibly complex systems (the blood-clotting process, for instance, the biochemist's analogue of the eye), they must be the outcome of the activities of an Intelligent Designer. In other words, the book is a tiresome reworking at the molecular level of the timeworn "design" argument.

So much has already been written by reviewers of this book that it seems unnecessary to add anything more (go to ahref=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.html [slashdot.org]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish. html>). Specialists far more competent than me have analyzed the numerous and gross deficiencies in Dr. Behe's flatulent arguments in considerable technical detail (see especially ahref=http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/dave/Behe.html [slashdot.org]http://w ww.cbs.dtu.dk/dave/Behe.html>), so there would be an emptiness in my remarks if I were to try to emulate them. If I am to add anything to the discussion, I am forced to choose to look at the book from a different perspective. The perspective I shall adopt is that of misrepresentation, for that quality pervades this book at every level.

Creationism implies a creator, which is uncomfortable for anyone who doesn't want to meet him. Doesn't change the fact that you *will* meet him, just as not believing in friction won't stop me falling off my bike if I do the above.

Aha. I agree that the Creator that you mention exists, but did you also know that He was Created by a Unicorn in a Flower-Pot?

What's that ? You don't believe me ? Well, that's just because you are afraid to meet the Unicorn in the Flower-pot!

> Come on get real. Evolution is accepted as fact by *those who don't want to believe in God*, because it implies no accountability.

Actually, very many educated people who believe in god also recognize the validity of the theory of evolution. I understand that the Pope has even made a formal declaration that the ToE is acceptable.

Just because your twisted branch of religious belief rejects science, it does not follow that all branches do.

> Creationists do *not* toss out "all of established science".

They sure toss out a lot of it, because so much of it conflicts with their religious beliefs. They start by throwing out evolution, then end up throwing out the rest of biology, physics, geology, and archaeology because they all offer support to the biologists' discoveries. History, while not generally considered "a science", also gets thrown out because it doen't offer them a gap to hide Noah's flood in. Then they also have to throw out astronomy and planetology because those disciplines support the true age of the earth instead of one particular mythical one.

The problem with creationists is that they don't understand the mass of mutually-supporting evidence that the theory of evolution is founded on, so when they try to throw it out they end up recursively throwing out most of science in an effort to support their denials.

> have a degree in comp sci - that's science, right? (as in computer SCIENCE, for the terminally stupid). I have a scientific approach to life. I just don't happen to believe I am a random product of electrocuted sludge, which although postulated about until the cows come home has never actually been *proven*

You reveal that you have no understanding of science. Science doesn't deal in proofs (unless you want to count mathematics and logic as fields of science). Science deals in economical explanations of evidence.

It's a shame that comp sci is usually offered in the College of Natural Sciences rather than in the College of Engineering where it belongs; it's an even greater shame that schools are letting people graduate with a degree from the College of Natural Sciences without even knowing what science is.

> except for the circular "well we're here so it must have happened that way" nonsense that many people seem to accept

Sounds more like creationist claims than scientists' claims.

> and the awfully convenient "millions of years" stuff which means it can't be demonstrated in a lab in a short time

Since you've already shown your ignorance of science I guess I shouldn't be surprized to discover that you are unaware that lots of science happens outside the laboratory. FWIW, evolution is studied in the lab quite a bit more than astronomy and geology are.

Microevolution has been proven perfectly. Given that we have known examples of evolution happening, why is there such a question over macro-evolution?

True scientists question theories to find what's right. They take a hypothesis, test it against real-world results, see if it fits, and keep going until they get a hypothesis which _does_ match the real world as accurately as possible. If two people come up with opposing hypotheses which both fit the data, they'll argue about why they're each right, and in the end science will either (a) find further data to prove one or the other, or (b) find a way to merge them into a single entity.

Creationists OTOH start not with a hypothesis but what they think they know as a fact, ie. creation by God in 6 days, in the year 4004BC. As a creationist, this is the only possible outcome - if you believe in creation, it is impossible for you to believe that any evolution has occurred, by definition. So if there's data which disproves creation, the only way ahead is to (a) ignore or (b) attempt to discredit that data (or the person providing the data), which creationists have done throughout the 20th century.

We don't believe in evolution bcos "we're here so it must be true", we believe in it bcos it fits the data gathered from all sciences, ie. a world several billion years old, geology, fossils, and the range of body forms for creatures. Certainly there's gaps in it, but there's less gaps than in the Biblical creation theory, and every development in biology has supported evolution and cast further doubt on creationism.

> Evolutionism contradicts many theories of science (such as the 2nd law of Thermodynamics), and distorts fact and scientific process in order to prove evolution.

I normally like to argue points on direct (as opposed to indirect) merit and avoid foul language and name-calling since it thins the argument, sometimes unacceptably.

That said, go out and read a fucking book on physics, you moron. I get so soSO tired of this stupidity that I have to lash out. Evolution does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics, in the same way that a refrigerator does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics. The Sun pours out an astonishing amount of energy, and what little of that energy falls on the Earth provides very nearly all of the energy to drive every living thing (and most non-living things) on the planet.

Now say it slowly, so you get it. Local reduction in entropy, coupled with larger general increase in entropy, is not inconsistent with the second law of thermodynamics.

The article only refers to the repressor genes, (i.e. 6 legs instead of 12). But the creature still has to go through the slow process of developing legs itself in order for the gene to have some effect. It also doesn't explain how appendages like for instance wings on that fruit fly came along. They would have to start somewhere and I can't see how wings could be useful in any but their mature form. They wouldn't be needed to slow an insects fall(as they are small enoguh not to be hurt) and I can't see a pair of fans growing the muscle control and speed necessary to flight. What steered the evolution of the fruit flies to lead them to functioning wings?

Creationists have always struck me as being strident and inflexible. I believe in evolution. I also believe in creation to the extent that some higher being at one point installed the last "spark plug", if you will, in order to give humans that certain something extra that separates us from mere beasts. I really do hold that both beliefs can coexist in harmony. There are two passages from the linked article that trouble me, however, being scientifically disposed and all that.

The achievement is a landmark in evolutionary biology, not only because it shows how new animal body plans could arise from a simple genetic mutation, but because it effectively answers a major criticism creationists had long leveled against evolution--the absence of a genetic mechanism that could permit animals to introduce radical new body designs.

and this one...

The UCSD team's demonstration of how a mutation in the Ubx gene and changes in the corresponding Ubx protein can lead to such a major change in body design undercuts a primary argument creationists have used against the theory of evolution in debates and biology textbooks.

Doesn't it seem that these scientists are going out of their way to discredit creationists? While the real bible-toting creationists constantly rail about the godlessness of science and the inherent evil they see in the theory of evolution, I always thought that the scientific view would be to let the results of solid research speak for themselves. A thinking person would be able to decide for himself what to make of the whole debate. These two paragraphs really disturb me. They clearly desire not only to further the study of evolutionary processes, but also to denigrate those who hold onto the creationist point of view for dear life (no pun intended). This seems to be way too over the top for my liking. Is it necessary to drag down opposing viewpoints while making your own best case? It's almost as though they actually see the by-the-book creationists as a threat to their cherished beliefs. Certainly, creationists feel that way about what science has shown us since the days of Darwin. Is it necessary to stoop to the same tactics?

I think it's a retrenchment. Up until recently, science had (mostly) ignored creationism as "just another freak religion".

There have been several calls over the last year in the scientific press to attempt to get scientists to take the "propogation of science" throughout the population more seriously, and this includes point out where challengers (such as creationism) fall short of the mark.

I remember also several articles in New Scientist and Scientific American trying to motivate scientists to "spread the word" against creationism. Perhaps it's just a response to that.

I also believe in creation to the extent that some higher being at one point installed the last "spark plug", if you will, in order to give humans that certain something extra that separates us from mere beasts.

For many of us 'creationist-bashers' its exactly this type of comment that gets us pissed off. 'Mere beasts'!!! 'Spark Plug'!!! WTF

You either mean consciousness (self-awareness), which other animals have been shown to have; or conscience, (awareness of right vs. wrong), which is part of abstract reasoning which does indeed make humans unique. I'll give you that, even though some researchers believe otherwise. But your argument wasn't that humans were unique, was it?

human compassion

Define compassion. Some humans have it, some don't. Will humans ever be able to live more peacefully than, say, deer? I doubt it, but one can only hope.

why we can talk,

Hmm. This is one of the arguments used to bolster evolutionary theory.

why we have a great capability to learn and a drive to achieve...

Because it increased our chances of survival in ancient times?

But you say, oh apes can talk and can learn, and have compassion. And I say, you are correct, so can my dog. But neither has made any great advancements in scientific research lately

> I also believe in creation to the extent that some higher being at one point installed the last "spark plug", if you will, in order to give humans that certain something extra that separates us from mere beasts.

Your delusions arise from the false assumption that we are separate from 'mere' beasts. The more we learn about the other apes, the more we realize that all the "humans only" stuff is merely a difference in degree of ability, not some great unbridgeable gap.

> Doesn't it seem that these scientists are going out of their way to discredit creationists?

Since creationists (I'm not counting just the belief that humans have a divine something as creationism) are going out of their way to discredit science, is that too unreasonable? The difference is that the scientists do it using the results of solid research, and the creationists do it by bullshit and lies. So it isn't really stooping to the same level.

This isn't really "more evidence for evolution" and more than gravity wave detectors are supposed to give us "more evidence for gravity" to refute flat-earthers. This is evidence about more detail of how evolution happens.

Belief? I don't believe in evolution -- I wouldn't know how to do such a thing. Belief never comes into it.

The preponderance of the evidence leads me to an obvious conclusion -- changes in individual living things occur from generation to generation. Enough time and changes occur, and you have this thing called evolution. In some ancient businesses, it's just called breeding.

If that evidence wasn't there, I'd conclude differently...but not necessarily that a spirit or deity was the necessary other choice.

Bullshit. Belief always comes into it, unless you happen to have run all the tests yourself. Case in point, you believe that this "evidence" about evolution that you've heard is true and correct.

Creationists, on the other hand, believe it is misinterpreted, wrong, or outright lies.

Sooner or later, evolution, like *every* scientific theory, falls back to a set of core beliefs. For a long time, a core belief was everything was newtonian, and there was scads of evidence to prove it. Until we started getting the evidence that there was something more.

Please remember that it is still called "Evolutionary Theory", and that 99% of what science has proven, science has later proven to be wrong.

Does this make it any less true? Maybe not.. but to say belief never comes into it is simply not being critical enough -- which is the exact same mistake that people claim Creationists are making.

The tendency to relocate the act of creation just before the first-proposed-event is called the doctrine of the God of the Gaps. Wherever we don't know something, some religious thinkers will stick God in as a place-keeper.

1) They misaplied the 2nd law of thermodynamics very poorly by treating a race of species as a closed system. A few chemist and myself (a physics major) were very upset at these outright lies.

2) They denied the existence of any transitional fossils, and basically said that scientists were arranging bones and fossils how they wanted to see them.

3) They made false accusations against radioactive dating that haven't applied sense the birth of the field.

4) And finally they had to make up for logical loop holes by stating that early man was far superior to present man, and that in the begining all species existed at once, including the dinosaurs.

5) In all of the debate, they only had one true argument, and it was a bad argument at that. Guess what that argument was? "Positive" mutations haven't been reproduced or observed in the laboratory, therefore they do not exist, therefore evolution is false. And this article is about just that.

Before the debate, I thought it would be interesting to see why someone would believe in creation. Afterwards I was a bit depressed. I had no idea how far a person would go to decieve themself and perpetuate a lie. I felf very sorry for the young teenagers that came with their church group. They were being raised by liars.

One of the debaters agrugment was based on the very results that this article brings up. I know if he saw this now, it would not change his opinion one bit. He has no reason, he creates what ever psuedo reason needed to calm the conflict between his arogant soul and his mind. I bet he doesn't even know that his words are lies.

Any way, I thought I would share this with you people. I don't know what can be learned from this, but anyway, good luck in this sad and ignorant world maya.

In all of the debate, they only had one true argument, and it was a bad argument at that. Guess what that argument was? "Positive" mutations haven't been reproduced or observed in the laboratory, therefore they do not exist, therefore evolution is false. And this article is about just that.

This isn't true at all really. Granted, we might never have zapped an E.coli with enough UV light to make it grow arms, but we've certaintly gotten plenty of positive function out of mutations in labs.

For instance, there is a well known tool in microbiology known as the "Temperature-Sensitive Mutant". A good way to get one of these is to zap it with UV or some other mutagen to induce a random point mutation (change in one nucleotide). This could alter the gene product just enough to make it non-functional at high temperatures, making the organism more sensitive to the environment than it was in the wild type form. This new sensitivity is a gain in function for the organism. It might not be beneficial, but it is a demonstrable gain of ability for the organism.

Another example would be oncogenes, which aren't always active, but can be activated via mutations, causing cancer.

There's some foddder for your next debate. Remember, a positive gain in function may wind up killing the organism, which is one reason why evolution takes so long. But random mutations certaintly have been shown to have an affect beyond deletion of the gene.

I don't disagree with the basics of your statements. The Creationist's argument is mostly emotional, so he uses the tactics of throwing out numerous nice-sounding but false claims, in the hope of staying ahead of a rigorous analysis of those claims.

However, it's ironic that you still have this in your sig:

The court ruled it legal to fuck the voters by running out the clock, and demonstrated how to do it.

A rigorous analysis has shown that in some ways of counting votes, Bush won. In some ways of counting votes, Gore won. From a more neutral perspective, the Florida Supreme Sourt screwed up by not taking control of the process when they had the opportunity to create the perception of an honest vote count. Instead, they allowed numerous abuses by the counting methods of Democrat operatives to go unchallenged. So, the US Supreme Court kept them from allowing a legally conducted election to be overthrown by questionable vote-counting methods.

In the end, it was just a power struggle between two political parties, and had nothing to do with the voters getting "fucked".

Viewing it in some slanted light isn't about facts, it's about religion.

Being Scientific often means forgetting the fact that you have a horse in the race for a bit, and instead evaluating the evidence from a neutral perspective. It's the reason why Science has brought us so far in the past few hundred years, whereas Religion accomplished nothing of the sort in the hundred thousand years before the Scientific Method was even postulated.

I felf very sorry for the young teenagers that came with their church group.

I was one of those teenagers. Not in the debate you are describing, but one held at Colorado State University back around 1980. The debate was very useful in that I came away from it suitably impressed by the clear victory of the biology professor who was debating the creationist Duane Gish.

Before the debate, I thought it would be interesting to see why someone would believe in creation. Afterwards I was a bit depressed. I had no idea how far a person would go to decieve themself and perpetuate a lie.

After the debate that I attended, I began reading outside of the narrow list of 'scientists' my church and parochial school presented me with. It didn't take me long to learn the difference between evidence and belief.

I don't know what can be learned from this...

I think it proves very well the point John Stuart Mill made in On Liberty: any idea should be debated. If it's not true, it will be exposed; if it is, it will be strengthened.

"He has no reason, he creates what ever pseudo reason needed to calm the conflict between his arrogant soul and his mind. I bet he doesn't even know that his words are lies."

That's exactly the way I feel about things when I hear/see/read pro-evolution debates. I'm not one of the most educated scientist in the world (high school was the extent of my interest in biology) but I like to think that I can understand things when they're laid out in front of me. I have never talked to someone who understands evolutionary theory and walked away without feeling like they just avoided issues and made false blanket statements in a defensive effort to avoid questioning what they believe so religiously. Still more common is the tendancy to belittle anyone who thinks differently. I don't express myself very well with words, but you have nicely summed up my feelings.
As a non-scientific type, I'm not qualified to my basis for believing in creation is the incredible balance and beauty of our ecosystem. Where I live I get rain, hail, snow and even some sun. I can even snowboard one weekend and surf the next. When I consider the almost infinite complexity of myself and my environment and the perfect balance with which we interact, I see a creation. Not random chaos. Ever watch Discovery channel? "It's a miracle that this could ever have evolved". Yes, I agree. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that you are the one believing the things that you were taught as a child rather than the truth.

If you're sincerely interested in learning more about the details that you feel some have glossed over, you should visit theTalk Origins [slashdot.org] web site to learn more of the scientific fact that is Evolution.

Ever watch Discovery channel? "It's a miracle that this could ever have evolved".

As human beings, we find it much easier to associate human or human-like motivations and motivators behind phenomenon that we don't understand.

Early man thought that the Sun, the Moon, and the weather were all guided mysteriously by some creature(s) that they called god(s). The reason they did so is because the Human brain seeks to stereotype complex things into simple ideas. Since early man had no hope of understanding meteorology, instead, he formulated a Wind God that made the wind blow.

Now, thanks to the Scientific method, we understand many of the natural forces behind our physical world. Time and again, Scientist have shown that there are no gods behind the physical phenomena that we once did not understand, causing religion to retreat into an ever-shrinking corner clinging to the god(s) that's surely hiding in man's ignorance.

So, yes: it's easy to watch the Discovery Channel, and think, "Wow, I don't understand it. It must be a miracle from God." However, God's track record for actually having done anything that the ancients thought he(they) did is a big fat goose egg. The challenge is for you to surpass your natural wish to stereotype the unknown as "God did it", and instead acknowledge things that are unknown as having any number of causes.

When faced with an unknown cause, apply Occam's Razor: That is, the simplest solution is most often the correct one, and should be the one assumed when nothing contradictory is known.

By thinking "God did it", you've added to the complexity of the problem, not reduced it. I mean, who created God? Must have been a SUPER GOD! But who created the SUPER GOD? I know, you'll say: Well, God has always been. It's his nature.

When I consider the almost infinite complexity of myself and my environment and the perfect balance with which we interact, I see a creation. Not random chaos.

Yes, and your being a "non-scientific type" clearly shows. Because you cannot explain it, it must be "magical". You have demonstrated that you do not understand even the most basic principles of the scientific method with an incredible attack of intellectual subterfuge. To wit: your error of assuming that an idea with scientific support exists on an equal footing of any random competing idea.

I also note that you (as are many, including "scientific types") are stuck in the fallacy of centralized thinking. I.e. that there must have been a central cause, maybe even a Who behind all that order that you perceive.

If you like nature programs, then you should particularly watch Attenborough's Trials of Life series. Note the segment on South American termite colonies. (Likely in the episode on "homebuilding", IIRC.) Realize that the hive as a whole is an incredibly complex entity. The aboveground portion of the hive is oriented with respect to the sun's path to control temperature within the hive. Such hives have heatsink fins as part of a natural cooling system underneath. On and on, everything points to the hive as one giant organism. Addressing a single termite as a "creature" is like addressing one of your neighbor's red blood cells as a "creature". From a collection of relatively simple elements (the termites) a complex order arises. Yet no one or collection of termites "plan" the construction of the hive as would a human architect.

Your perception of "chaos" is an illusion. It has become a convenient excuse to hide the fact that your mind cannot wholly encompass all that you experience. Just accept that all the answers won't ever be available, and work up from there. Humans have made the same mistake since the dawn of our history: to write off the unexplained with a comforting blanket of fiction. Comfort doesn't make it true.

In the end, the scientific method gets real results that are readily experienced. Wishful thinking does not.

One of the things that continues to astound and sadden me about humanity in general is this whole "Creation vs Evolution" debate.

I mean, the evidence for evolution is just so prevelant and overpowering that I cannot understand how any reasonable human being with any powers of reason could deny it.

I mean, I cannot understand why its even a topic of debate.

It seems that the majority of Creationists represent the damnible human facility towards self-delusion in the face of fact because it contradicts their world-view.

The sole exception I grant to the "Creationists-Lite" who believe that their Diety kicked off the Big Bang and then let things progress from there unassisted. While I find the idea a little goofy, I give them that the concept cannot be disproven, and at least it doesn't require them to invent or ignore established fact.

But the mudslingers and other cognitive dissentors I just do not understand.:(:(

Maybe God created a World that looks like the result of billions of years of evolution.

Or maybe God created a world that is the result of billions of years of evolution. I'm not particularly religious, but it has always amazed me that so many people apparently believe that a very old Earth/Universe and biological evolution somehow preclude the existence of a higher power. The last time I checked, biology (and the natural sciences in general) was in the business of answering the "how" questions. It makes no attempts to answer the "who" or "why" questions.

Certainly, if a person believes in an all-powerful God, then said person must (by definition) believe that said God would be capable of creating life by employing evolutionary processes. If you were an engineer charged with populating a planet, would you design a species, wipe the drawing board clean, and start from scratch to design another species that is 99% similar to the one you just got done with? I know I wouldn't, and I'm just a lowly code monkey.

I'm an apathetic agnostic, but as far as I can tell, this whole "evolution versus creation" debate is the biggest non-issue in recent history since, by and large, they are the same thing. Oh, I'm aware that there are problems with evolution if you are one of these Biblical literalists who believe that every last word of the Bible is 100% true and that the Universe is 6,000 years old. But I've always been under the impression that these folks constitute a small (but vocal) minority of American evangelicals. Certainly, the Christians that I talk to consider these folks to be a bit of an embarassment.

The "rift" between science and religion (to the extent that there is one) is largely a creation of militant fundamentalists and militant atheists taking pot-shots at each other from opposite sides of a barbed-wire fence. To the rest of us, there is a large middle ground that has more than enough room to hold us comfortably.

No, it doesn't win the Occam's Razor test, because you have to account for what caused God to come into being.

Pick a non-observable phenomenon, like abiogenesis or the creation of the universe. Either it happened spontaneously (i.e., "the universe had no creator") or it was created (i.e., "the universe was created by a creator that had no creator.").

Occam's Razor suggests that you not multiply entities unnecessarily. Hence, the introduction of a supreme creative being into any equation fails Occam's Razor.

Many years in the future, a bunch of scientists manage to contact God.

"God," they go on to say, "we no longer need you. Anything you can do, we can do. We know now how everything works."

"Is that so?" God responds. "Well, in that case, how about a contest? You create a man, and I'll create a man and we'll see which turns out better."

"Agreed," the scientists repond.

"But," God continues, "you'll have to do it like I did and create a man from the dirt."

"Not a problem," the scientists chortle, knowing enough to be able to resequence basic elements into complex structures like DNA. So, in unison, the scientists get out their beakers, bend down, and scoop up some dirt.

"Whoa, whoa, whoa," God says. "You get your own dirt."

My point? Evolution is a non issue. The real debate is in the origin of the framework by which everything evolves. Scientists playing with DNA can make pretty much anything happen. But they still can't create matter with a thought.

Unfortunately, while the scientists presuppose the existence of matter in your argument, you presuppose the existence of a God that can create that matter. No one wins this argument, like any other of this sort.

All these so-called "discoveries" are just window dressing. Articles like this one remind me of the magicians using eye-catching attention getters to distract people from the charade they are respresenting as truth.

I think you're missing the point. This sort of thing isn't really taking a stand on the issue you're talking about, although we all tend to jump right to that anyway. Like you said, it can't be proven (or at least, we have absolutely no conception as to how to prove it right now) but what they are finding is the mechanism by which these things happen.

Before you discount the importance of this in the face of "God/No God", think of this: where would we be if Newton hadn't told us that, yes, the universe does have rules. Pasteur told us that, yes, there is something tangible (not just "sin") that causes disease. It might not directly be addressing your fundamental question, but it is an important thing to answer for both sides of the debate, as well as anyone in the middle or way out in left field. If you're looking to understand God or the Universe or something else entirely, discoveries like these help to realign your perceptions about how the world works in very jarring and enlightening ways. You don't have to go around believing you got the plague because you were a bad person, even though you thought you did everything right. You don't have to believe that there was a storm because you were destined to wind up at the bottom of the ocean for that affair you had. You can believe these things if you want to, but you gain the freedom and knowledge to make a more informed decision than our ancestors were able to make.

That, in my opinion, is the ultimate form of progress.

This does not really impact the fundamental question that you're addressing at all, nor does it take away from the beauty of the world around us. Indeed, I think things like this only serve to enrich both, and I find it sad that most people use these sorts of findings just to deconstruct the world for science or God.

All you're saying is the same argument that has been offered up for centuries. Each time we learn more and find out what fictions have been pushed as facts, the religious move the goalposts back and deny that a point has been scored.

In children, this attitude is cute and interesting. In philosophers, it's part of the trade. In adults making a reasoned argument, it's ingenuous and artificial.

"The achievement is a landmark in evolutionary biology, not only because it shows how new animal body plans could arise from a simple genetic mutation, but because it effectively answers a major criticism creationists had long leveled against evolution--the absence of a genetic mechanism that could permit animals to introduce radical new body designs.
"

It's a shame that UCSD found it necessary to refer to the creationist bugbear. Creationism has been dead and buried for well over a century except in the USA, where it lives on as a political movement impervious to scientific discussion. Scientists should deny it the courtesy of appearing to take it seriously.

I just wanted to provide a link to the graphic used to illustrate what these scientists claim to have discovered.

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/graphics/images/mchox2. jp g

Do they purport that this genetic switch creates the numerous organs required to allow flight, including a complete set of wings, as well as creating the numerous changes in the brain to allow flight to be controlled? Does it create the numerous changes to the articulation of nearly every visible limb on the illustrated insect's body? If not, isn't this illustration sophism at it's very worst?

Hey slashdotters! Try looking at this article half as critically as you would a press release from Microsoft.

In all of the debate, they only had one true argument, and it was a bad argument at that. Guess what that argument was? "Positive" mutations haven't been reproduced or observed in the laboratory, therefore they do not exist, therefore evolution is false. And this article is about just that.

What about antibiotic resistant bacteria? A relatively quick case of evolution in action. Obviously not a positive mutation from our viewpoint - but a positive one from the organism's viewpoint.

The idea that random mutations can turn a functioning gene into another functioning gene (with no fatal in between states) makes exactly as much sense as the idea the random bit mutations can turn a functioning method into a new working method with a different function (without core dumping in the process).

Never heard of genetic algorithms? They do precisely as you suggest. The fact is, the vast majority of code is not evolved in the sense of vast amounts of mostly faithful replication strewn with the occasional mutation and a population big enough that it can withstand genetic failures without threatening the entire population.

Nature is extremely subtle. One of the things that all living organisms have in common is that their genetic mechanisms have proven to be amenable to some mutation. An organism that was so finely tuned and so brittle that *any* change in its genome would be fatal would be a strong rebuff to evolutionary theory. The fact is that organisms are just not that fragile. Your code is, my code is, Bill Gates' code is, but none of us developed our code under the same conditions that nature developed life on the planet.

The theory is that the genetic mechanism has itself been selected for evolvability. Why else would we have diploid gene pairs? Why else would DNA have the base pair redundancy? Why else would the genome have 'trigger points' which can make for large body changes with small mutations?

The increased prevalence of antibiotic resistance is an outcome of evolution. Any population of organisms, bacteria included, naturally includes variants with unusual traits--in this case, the ability to withstand an antibiotic's attack on a microbe. When a person takes an antibiotic, the drug kills the defenseless bacteria, leaving behind--or "selecting," in biological terms--those that can resist it. These renegade bacteria then multiply, increasing their numbers a millionfold in a day, becoming the predominant microorganism.

My friends and I have been batting this one around, maybe you can help. It concerns how one gets from a primordial soup full of replicators (see 'The Selfish Gene', by Richard Dawkins) to something like a cell, way before anything like a regulator gene.

Every environment can be thought of as presenting a utility function to the organisms that inhabit that environment. Dawkins gives an example of the following utility function:

Try to see if a population of organisms can "discover" the line of poetry "This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper." You'll note that there are 29 possible choices for each letter (26 letters + commas + periods + spaces). And in the above string, there are a total of 62 characters. So, to present the power of evolutionary theory, Dawkins imagines a population of agents randomly initialized to 62 characters. One of these might be:

"jkdzcn43asdf lkjasdfhaokjshfla ksdhfoiuykjahs, asdasd. sdfsdf."

you can imagine that each agent reproduces unequally based upon how well it does given the utility function -- in this case, the utility function returns an integer from 0 to 62, where 0 indicates no letters match and 62 represents a perfect match for the entire sentence. Each generation is exposed to mutation in the Dawkins example, though one could easily add crossover (which implies sexual reproduction) and inversion. The code is roughly:

1) initialize X agents in a population to random strings of length 62
2) write a function where each agent reproduces unequally based upon how well it optimizes the utility function given above. This choice matters, but not a lot. For our purposes, imagine that every organism below some threshold X has a 10% chance per time period of dying outright. And every organism above this threshold has a 10% chance of replicating.
3) After step 2 (which represents one tick on the clock), expose each organism to genetic operators. Mutation is simple: pick a % chance Y (where Y is small; if it is too large, you lose information too quickly) for each character in an agent (or gene if you prefer) to mutate to a random character. Thus, if Y is equal to.5%, you go through each of the 62 characters / genes in an agent, roll the dice, and if it comes up.5% or less, you mutate that character.
4) repeat steps 2 and 3 until you see equilibration of your population.
After a bit, it should be obvious to you that most of your agents will approach the correct sentence, whatever their starting values. Further, not all of the organisms in a population will ever be at the "right" outcome, given mutation in step 3.

So what does this tell us? Simple math helps out. To optimize the utility function above is simple, and we know this because we can compute the number of steps it would take to optimize it. Couple of points:

1) the function Dawkins uses (outlined above) is separable. No character / gene depends upon any other character / gene to determine the utility of its expression. This is huge. Think about it until you get a smile on your face. For real organisms, this is NOT the case (i.e., genes are non-separable). This is why evaluating the results of the genome project is ugly. If we had, for example, one gene acting alone to determine intelligence, it would be easy to detect / modify. Sadly, multiple genes acting in concert determine intelligence, and modifying one gene in the set changes the value for the entire set.

2) The number of steps needed to optimize the above function is 29 * 62 = 1798, which is an extraordinarily TINY search space.

3) If the characters / genes were non-separable, as they are in real organisms, things are quite different. Worst case is completely non-separable -- i.e., every character depends upon the value of every other character for evaluation under the utility function. In this case, you have 29^62 (where the '^' represents the exponent function). Obviously, this is a freaking HUGE number. Even low levels of non-separability (e.g., pairs of genes that depend upon each other to produce a trait) generate huge search spaces.

The fraud of Dawkins is thus simple. He proposes a set of operators that
define his theory of evolution -- unequal reproduction, crossover, mutation,
and inversion, and illustrates their efficacy (i.e., the "success" of the
theory) on a simple toy problem. The ugliness, however, is that solving
separable problems, which is the class of utility functions Dawkins uses
to "test" his theory, is trivial. Everything / anything works well on them,
and there is no real way for any given theory to fail on this class of
utility functions. The other, more interesting class, which has the
property of being an analog to REAL ORGANISMS WITH REAL GENES is when the
utility functions are non-separable, and the theory / set of operators
Dawkins proposes has NO success searching the spaces induced by this type of
utility function.

It is as if I set up a craps game, you come to play, and the rules are, I
win all double sixes and you win everything else. You commence to roll
double sixes until I have all the money in the world. I assert that the
dice are not loaded.

The dice for complex life are loaded somehow, or we don't understand the
mechanisms of genetics. The existence of these regulator genes simply begs
the question.

None of this, of course, displaces evolution as the best fit for the
available evidence.

The article opener claims that this finding can explain how sea creatures could evolve into insects. That isn't what it explains at all.

... the scientists show how mutations in regulatory genes that guide the embryonic development of crustaceans and fruit flies allowed aquatic crustacean-like arthropods, with limbs on every segment of their bodies, to evolve 400 million years ago into a radically different body plan: the terrestrial six-legged insects.

So they change a key gene or two and the shrimp lose some legs. SO WHAT? As useful as this may prove to be for gene therapy and all, this does not explain away the Creationists' argument!

To my knowledge, no evolutionist claims that insects were the first land animals. An animal that can survive in a marine environment just cannot migrate to land, no matter how many legs it has.

To explain away the Creationists' argument, not only does a candidate mechanism such as this have to be found, but there must be a detailed explanation of which changes occurred, to which species, in what order, and how the resulting creatures could survive in either land or water.

The evolutionists still have a lot of work to do. If a shrimp loses legs and gills, and absorbs oxygen through the skin, can it still survive in water long enough to go ashore?

Whenever I get in a discussion with evolutionist types, they often respond with an attitude of over-skepticism. Stuff like, "I won't even consider this belief system without absolute proof!" Are those same people now criticizing Creationists for not bowing before this non-proof?

Now as for myself, I have very little knowledge of Biology (just high school level), but I'm no dummy. I know all about the black and white moths, and the drug-resistant bacteria, and the Galapagos finches, and all that. No one I know, Creationists included, doubts that variations occur over time. But I for one reserve the right to doubt an idea like evolution, that if true would completely invalidate my world-view, without more evidence than we currently have.

NOTE: I did not say that I have no doubts about Creationism. I have quite a few, not the least of which is the "Starlight & Time" problem. But that's another topic.

My point in summary: Lots of you Slashdot types love the stance of universal skepticism, but everybody believes something they can't prove. Evolution may be yours, or atheism, or astrology, but Creationism is mine.

Excuse us scientists for only being able to get pieces of a 5-6 billion year-old puzzle. We're really doing the best we can. Here goes.

So they change a key gene or two and the shrimp lose some legs. SO WHAT? As useful as this may prove to be for gene therapy
and all, this does not explain away the Creationists' argument!

First, I don't see how making an animal lose a pair of limbs helps for gene therapy. That aside, nobody's claiming that this is the final piece of evidence, only that it's another nail in the creationist coffin. A common argument of theirs has been that entire organs & limbs can't simply appear or disappear through simple genetic changes. Well, genetically, scientists have made that happen, and showed that on that score creationists are wrong.

An animal that can survive in a marine environment
just cannot migrate to land, no matter how many legs it has.

Walruses. Penguins. Hermit crabs. Mudskippers. Etc. I know they're evolved (oops), but these are all animals that in their daily lives, apparently, do the impossible. With all these animals doing it every day, is it so impossible to believe that it might have happened at some point in the past, with or without legs? And who said legs were a requirement to move to land?

To explain away the Creationists' argument, not only does a candidate mechanism such as this have to be found, but there must be a
detailed explanation of which changes occurred, to which species, in what order, and how the resulting creatures could survive in
either land or water.

Glad to get down to brass tacks with you. The mechanism is natural selection, which we're constantly seeking to describe more thoroughly in our work. We're also seeking all the factual evidence we can to mount atop the mountains of it we already have. While it's difficult to reach through the millenia of the fossil record, we're working on it, based on facts, as we go along.

Now I'd like to require the same factual rigor of you. Please provide factual proof of a God's existence and his influence in placing living things on this planet. I want a candidate mechanism and a detailed explanation of what changes occurred and how. Again, we'd like facts and not bible quotations please.

The evolutionists still have a lot of work to do. If a shrimp loses legs and gills, and absorbs oxygen through the skin, can it still survive
in water long enough to go ashore?

This comment is pointless, as there's no reason a shrimp would have to either lose legs or gills to come ashore. There are gilled fish that can survive for a time ashore as well as gill-less marine mammals, as are there many legless and multilegged animals that can do so.

Are those same people now criticizing Creationists for not bowing before this
non-proof?

The difference is that our evidence is based on a preponderance of facts, developed through repeatable experiment, and leading us in a direction toward a theory that has withstood almost 150 years of scientific scrutiny, despite concerted effort from your camp. Yours is based on mythology, as written by a group of middle-eastern tribesmen under Roman rule between 100 & 500AD. Again, the extraordinary claim that we were placed here by a God requires the extraordinary proof of being provided evidence of God's existence and his influence in worldly affairs.

I have very little knowledge of Biology

This is possibly the most needless statement I've read on Slashdot ever. Congratulations.

I for one reserve the right to doubt an idea like evolution, that if true would completely invalidate
my world-view, without more evidence than we currently have.

We all have the right to persist in a comforting delusion, despite the facts. It's when creationists push for that delusion to be the basis of other's lives through law and forced creationist teaching in public schools that I get indignant.

Lots of you Slashdot types love the stance of universal skepticism, but everybody believes something they
can't prove. Evolution may be yours, or atheism, or astrology, but Creationism is mine.

First, just so everyone knows where I'm comming from, I was raised a creationist. And in the past I've been a devote creationist that would try to "debate" with others to promote my point of view -- thinking that if you believed in evolution you were an atheist. However, as I have matured (a little bit, not much), I can say that my own beliefs have evolved.

I don't understand anymore this animosity that Christians and Evolutionist have between each other -- this fierce compitition. When I read the Genesis account (first few chapters) and get all the imagery out of my head that I was raised with (the presuppositions so to speak) I see a very general story that is not intended to be a science text book. I think details are purposely omitted because the point of the book is not for us to know exactly how everything came into being, but to understand that a supernatural being created it and the relationship that we have to this being.

Christians that are threatened by evolution don't have a true concept of the omnipotence of an all powerfull God (or Yahweh, Jehovah, Cosmic Spirit, or whatever name you attach). Think about it, if you had unlimited processing power and data, you could drop thousands of pieces of paper from a plane at 10K feet and know exactly where each paper would land. Moreover, now assume that you can control all of the variables (wind speed/direction, ordering of papers, turbulance, etc) -- then you would be able to cause each of these papers to land where you wish them to land. Now, back up to the Big Band (or whatever started the Universe). Assuming that all energy and matter that exists in the universe today was involved in the Big Bang (to my knowlege science has not found any exceptions to the law of conservation of energy and matter). Now lets assume there's an all powerful being that causes this Bang and sets up all the variables to Its liking. This being, in theory, could then foreordain the entire universe as we know it today in a single instance at the time of the Big Bang. To the Creationist, all of this appears to be the work of God, Its creation. However, to the Evolutionist, all of this appears to be the work of chance (just a question for thought, but is anything really random? Or do we just label events as random when they become too computationally complex?). Add to this that God is outside of time (exists in all of time at all instances at once) and you realize that there's more the the Genesis account than meets the eye! I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think that science and the Bible are mutually exclusive.

Now, on the flip side, I don't understand why some scientists are so bent on disproving the Bible and slamming Christians -- almost a fear of Judeo-Christian beliefs (well...maybe I do, there have been and still are some pretty crummy people that call themselves Christans). The Bible was written by over 40 authors from 3 continents and from various backgrounds (kings, prophets, common folk, political prisioners, etc) and it was written over a span of 1500 years! What a wealth of knowlege and wisdom it contains. Some claim that it contains a meta-narrative of a God trying to reconcile a relationship with mankind. If nothing else it contains history and 1500 years of culture and living experiance. How you choose to read it is where faith comes into the picture. It's just a shame that there are all of these debates about the Bible and Science, but very few people actually read the Bible (including Christians) even though it is classic literature and a great read once you understand the context/culture/timeline in which it was written.

All of this creationism hot air. But on Slashdot? Isn't this a technodweeb's paradise? A science geek's home?

Whenever a debate on evolution springs up on the net, does some appointed sentinel of the far right ring the clarion call of Christian Fundamentalism and call forth a vanguard of babbling halfwits running to the scene of the crime to proclaim The Truth?

I'm really sorry. Mod me troll, mod me flamebait. I know it is no good to throw a pail of water on the idea of commentary on a website devoted to comments. But this is Slashdot, isn't it? We believe in science and tech here, no?

Look, some guidelines for non-creationists, as I see it, for whatever it is worth:

Don't talk to them.

PLEASE! Don't take the bait! They only relate babbling pits of tomfoolery to your mind. You can not reason with them! Every pound of logical heft you hurl in their direction will be replied with immediately by 10 pounds of so much clangityclank of the brain that you will only be left dumbfounded by the psychology of it all. The point is to not engage them. Because engaging them will not allow their ideas to die the ignoble historical death their ideas deserve. The dustbin of history must not be disturbed, as it is already disturbed enough as it is. The more you try to persuade them to reason, the more you breathe life into a sinking ship. Your pleas for reason will only be replied with with flim flam.

They mean well, and that is their problem. But they can't get their brains past a bad idea. They must justify it, by any means possible. So the harder and harder you blow against them, the harder they hold their cloak of belief. Stop blowing, let time and solitude relax their grips on their insanity.

I hear some primitive tribespeople fear having their pictures taken because they think the camera steals a bit of their soul. So if they don't see a camera, they don't get excited. And when their backwards beliefs are not challenged, they live peaceful, harmless lives. In other words, don't show creationists cameras. Get it?

After all, Al Qaeda is nothing more than a Muslim Fundamentalist backlash against the "decadent West." New ideas are dangerous. Progress is disturbing to some people. Some do not accept new, and better ideas. They instead cling to old, crazy ones and get very defensive about it. They frame it in absolutes, that evolution goes against God, for example. Evolution does not go against God. Science is not allied against religion. Any forward-thinking religious person can incorporate evolution into their world-view without evolution challenging their beliefs. It will, in fact, enrich their understanding of the world, deepen the mystery of life by making more clear the complexity of it all, and therefore, eventually, reaffirm their belief in God. But all of this assumes an open mind. Unfortunately, there are a lot of closed ones.

Don't show creationists cameras!

Leave them to their strange ways. Left in peaceful backwards isolation, they will eventually go the way of the Dodo, no irony intended. Right now their numbers are too large and the voraciousness of their passion too disturbing in the USA to be considered harmless. They are quite harmful, to the education and intelligence of all of our children. Give it time, many years, and they will fade away into history. Someday, decades from now, creationism will sound almost cute and harmless, like we laugh at the Spanish Inquisition in Monty Python skits.

Until then, they are just a massive pain in the ass. Please, ignore them! Here on Slashdot, and in the rest of your life. Your intentions are good in trying to challenge them in honest debate, but please, just walk away from them. There is no winning, just lots of hot air for you to inhale.;-P

Well, you have the good fortune to live in a country where the majority of people are sensible. Those of us who live in the US have to deal with states banning the teaching of evolution in public schools and other nonsense. I don't expect this to cause all the nuts to go away overnight, but hopefully this will speed their departure.

Note that gravity is a theory. I have a theory about gravity too, should it be taught? Evolution is as much a theory as the theory of relativity, gravity, etc. The details might not be correct, but essentially, there is no known counter-evidence, and no reason to suggest it is incorrect.

The details might not be correct, but essentially, there is no known counter-evidence, and no reason to suggest it is incorrect.

Gentry's haloes [halos.com] are a good start; the absence of intermediate fossils launched Punctuated Equilibrium (which otherwise has no leg to stand on); simple maths shows that it's impossible anyway [pathlights.com] and the list of ``reasons to suggest it is incorrect [youngearth.org]'' rolls on towards the horizon.

I'd find Creationists a bit more convincing if they didn't have to resort to blatant misinformation in their arguments again and again. Half-truths and distortions do nothing more than convince me that some of these Creationists don't even believe their own propaganda, since they can't stick to the facts.

The whole argument is stupid, anyhow. It's based on a mistaken belief that one must cling to a questionable interpretation of the Bible as a matter of faith. Has anyone noticed that only Creationists tie Evolution, Geology, and Atheism together? Those who research Evolution do not insist that one must be an atheist if one believes that evolution rather than recent creation is a better explanation for the development of life on Earth. Those who teach and research modern geology do not insist that one must be an atheist if one believes that geologic processes rather than recent creation is a better explanation for the current geology of Earth.

However, since Creationists fallaciously tie acceptance of modern geology and evolutionary theory to disbelief that God created the Earth, and therefore disbelief in God (i.e., atheism), it has become a matter of faith to oppose evolutionary theory and modern geology as a false, atheistic (and thus, probably diabolic) doctrine by any and all means. If you don't believe me, go read articles and web sites by Creationists that are targetted toward Christians, as opposed to the general public.

To my mind, it is all very pointless because there is no contradiction between evolution and God; who are they to say how God created the universe and life? How can they know that evolution and geological processes are not just more tools in God's toolbox? They can't know, and they who presume to know how God created the universe or to put limits on the methods God used in creation are both small-minded and arrogant beyond belief!

To my mind, the power and grandeur of God is elevated, and not diminished by evolution and geology. To achieve His unknown goals, He started out at least 15 billion years ago with the Big Bang, and designed the entire process of star formation, planet formation, geological processes, evolution, etc! That's a lot bigger than POOF! The Earth was wished into existance a mere 6000-8000 years ago, complete with fake fossils and fake geology.

I wonder if Creationists are afraid of the power and knowledge of the God who created evolution and the Big Bang; I wonder if they want to cut Him down to a size they can comprehend?

Interesting commentary, and I must say that I happen to believe that a "He spoke and it came into existence" does sound a heckuva lot like a "Big Bang".

However, the fact remains that many adherents to the Atheistic Faith (to say that, conclusively, there is no God takes just as much faith as the converse) seek to throw up Big Bang and Evolutionary arguments as proof of the non-existence of God.

I'm also of the opinion that adhering to the tenet that we are descended from Great Apes goes a long way towards reducing people's willingness to believe in the superiority of homo sapiens. I believe that God created us in His image (and the Bible says nothing of intermediary steps in the process) and so, to claim that there was an "open beta test" for hominids is fairly sacreligious, as it calls into question both God's intent and His competency as a Creator.

I'm a big fan of Don Behe's "irreducible complexity" theory (see Darwin's Black Book, ISBN: 0684834936 [amazon.com]), as it goes a long way towards highlighting the biochemical obstacles to macro-evolution).

Then again, you can always take the Douglass Adams tack: Creation itself is proof of a Divine Creator and since conclusive proof would obviate the need for Faith, Poof! He vanished in a puff of logic.

Man, I'm sorry he's (errrm, Adams, not God) dead. Would have been nice to see the 6th book in his 5-part trilogy completed before his death (instead of the old Tolkien-Unfinished-Works-style book that we'll be getting...)

What I have never seen is scientific evidence of macroevolution (a change from one species to another, or two separate species evolving from one).

There's no such thing as "a change from one species to another". It's like people expect some animal to magically turn into some other animal they're familiar with already. But two separate species evolve from one all the time. Bears and wolves had a common ancestor. And look at what people have done to the wolf species itself in the space of a few thousand years, with all these dogs. An example that is still one of the best ones is Darwin's finches. Each island had a different subspecies living on it.

While there are many theroies on that subject, they all rely on some "missing link" that hasn't yet been found. I'm not convinced that it ever will.

Creationists use this stupid argument all the time. They seize on any gap they find:

A gap B

Then someone finds an intermediate form:

A gap X gap B

and now there are two gaps to bitch and moan over!

As more intermediate forms are discovered:

A gap Y gap X gap Z gap B

Look, there are FOUR gaps now! Surely evolution must be wrong, because there just seem to be more and more gaps to explain these theories, right?
Short of a genealogical chart listing every single animal parent back for four billion generations, I don't see how it's possible to satisfy these people.

Except, of course, for Newton's laws, which have been around for 300 years.

Um, you do know that Newton's laws aren't quite right, right? They are only a good approximation at low speed and manageable mass.

Incorrect. Survival of the fittest is a speculation made by Charles Darwin. He does not propose a way to disprove his statement.

For starters it was a speculation popularized by Darwin. And if you cannot think of a way to disprove his statements, you are in serious need of a basic science course. Science doesn't require you to publish how something can be shown false, only that an educated person can.

Gravity is a phenomenon initially observed by human beings on the planet Earth

What a coincidence! Evolution is a phenomenon that was also initially observed by human beings on the planet Earth!

Professors and teachers of evolution themselves admit that it is nothing more than a theory. Creationism is also, admitted by the professors of said doctrine, to also be a theory.

Creationism holds about as much water as a scientific theory as geocentrism does, i.e. NONE. If it weren't in the frickin Bible you nutbags wouldn't have any reason WHATSOEVER to think that the entire biological population was made bow-zap 4K years ago or so. Why? Because there is no physical evidence whatsoever to back it up! None!

Where are the dinosaurs in the Bible, my little buckaroo? You'd certainly figger that something as mind-bogglingly large as a brontosaurus might just be MENTIONED once or twice.

Oh yes, and your First Amendment rights stop right where my nose begins. I don't want MY kids being taught that religious claptrap, thanks very much. And I am, for the record, a parent. I don't want them begin taught that Xenu is a "viable alternative," or that we all sprouted from the forehead of Zeus, or WHATEVER creation myth you care to throw out there. Science, pure science, and damn be he who first cries "Hold! Too much!"

> Creationism holds about as much water as a
> scientific theory as geocentrism does, i.e.
> NONE.
Have you ever heard of the saying: Perception is reality? It has to do with perspective... a person sees something and perceives it to be real. The earth "appears" to be the center of the universe to the casual observer. This idea from the powers of observation. Closer observation reveals the truth, however - that the earth is NOT the center of the universe.

> Where are the dinosaurs in the Bible, my little
> buckaroo? You'd certainly figger that something
> as mind-bogglingly large as a brontosaurus might
> just be MENTIONED once or twice.

Let me ask you a question: If you were a caveman and a guy with wierd unkempt hair (Einstein) came along and tried to explain Relativity to you... would you understand it? I'll let you answer that.
Now, if we move forward a few years give or take a thousand to an age where man has had some progress but not much mind you. This man tries to explain the things around him and understand as most all men do. This powerful presence appears and in it's intelligence, doesn't want to... how did you say it "mind-boggle" him? Things get explained to the man on a level and in a way he can understand. Let's not confuse this man with details ok?

Look at the order of events in Genesis and compare them to the order science says they occured. Does that boggle your mind that it generally agrees with what science now says? The Bible said it thousands of years ago.

> Oh yes, and your First Amendment rights stop
> right where my nose begins. I don't want MY kids
> being taught that religious claptrap, thanks
> very much.
I'm sure these frickin Bible totin nutbags don't want some fricken Darwin totin nutbags telling them that their kids must study Evolution. It works both ways. As for Zeus or other creation myths, such is considered literature these days.

> Science, pure science, and damn be he who first
> cries "Hold! Too much!"
So, Science is your religion I take it.

Ok, now for my additional points:

We are alive. So we were created somehow. Be it by a benevolent power or by chance - we were created.

Our design is encoded in DNA/RNA sequences and this DNA/RNA seems to be universal. From the smallest virus to the largest single-cell organism; from the most primitive paramecium to the human being - we all have DNA/RNA as the method of encoding our biological machinery. i.e. WE ARE RELATED.

The earth was terraformed by life. When life first fell, was created or whatever on earth back when it was still largely molten, there wasn't really any oxygen or plants or any land as we know it today. These archaeobacteria (very advanced in their own right and where the heck did THEY come from??) ate rock. Cyanobacteria came into existance to take advantage of the freshly broken down minerals, the abundant CO2 and the precipitating water. Aerobic bacteria came to be to take advantage of the abundance of oxygen and other material floating around in the soup and in the air.

Life has shown itself to be very hardy when it comes to living conditions. Have they not found spores on parts of spacecraft brought back to earth that were deposited before the craft were launched and are still viable? Life can endure in space without protection.

Who's to say that life didn't just fall on earth - this panspermia idea?

What this all boils down to is that NO ONE has all the right answers - NO ONE is omniscient or omnipotent - at least no human. That means you too Rev.

Where are the dinosaurs in the Bible, my little buckaroo? You'd certainly figger that something as mind-bogglingly large as a brontosaurus might just be MENTIONED once or twice.

Job 40:15ff [gospelcom.net], KJV: not only dinosaurs, but dragons, fire and all, just like the historical ones -

Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares. Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down? Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn? Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee? Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever? Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens? Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants? Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears? Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more. Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him? None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me? Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine. I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion. Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him with his double bridle? Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about. His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal. One is so near to another, that no air can come between them. They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered. By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth. In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him. The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved. His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone. When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves. The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon. He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood. The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble. Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear. Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire. He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment. He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary. Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear. He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride.

As for the 4K years, it's more like 6K years, and there's no shortage of evidence, things like fresh wood in Manley sandstone. But I don't think you're serious. Your URL is a bit of a giveaway, for example. You sound like you're just ranting in ignorance. Are you?

Ok, I feel compelled to respond dispite my better judgement. In the education there are a variety of disciplines which are responsible for doing their best to explain themselves. History for instance widely teaches (in public schools in the US) that mankind was doing this or that 10K years ago. Geology teaches us that the Earth was formed a handful of billion (hope that's right) years ago. Astronomy discusses the big bang occuring 12? billion years ago. While we expect these disciplines to say, "Of course these events happened before our lives, so these are only the theories which we have the best evidence for." We generally do not expect them to also say, "There is also a Christian theory that says the Universe is 6-10K years old." Why? Because these disciplines are responsible for teaching History, Geology and Astronomy and use the scientific tools available to Historians, Geologists and Astronomers to create and explain the best theories they can. Biologists are in the same boat. They have to explain how living beings came to be and to think about biology. They have to use scientific analysis and the fine art of digging up old bones to make their theory. Evolution is a pretty darn good one. It actually merits Theory status rather than hypothesis status. To my knowledge biology has excactly two theories. Cell Theory and Evolution. Ok, I've beat that into the ground. Next!

Regarding your First Amendment Arguement, you're totally wrong. You have the right to say you believe in Creationism and Evolution is rubbish. However, that right does not extend to forcing schools to teach your opinion. End of Story.

Finally, I would like to make it clear that I am a Christian and believe God is quite responsible for the creation of the Universe and mankind. However, I refuse to take 7 days literally and admire the fine tuning of a Universe which expands gracefully; a planet formed out of star bits to contain the ingredients for life; and the effectiveness of evolution. If you witnessed the Big Bang, what better description than "then there was light"? I digress. I would encourage you to accept scientists when they tell you their description of the world is kinda close to how it actually is. Then admire the brilliance of the universe that was Created. Huge, billions and billions of stars all created with an attention to detail that makes quantum phyisics a mess for us.
Enjoy the world and stop whining that science shows a description of creation targetted to a civilization 4000 years old as much as to modern man, might not be best taken literally.

Professors and teachers of evolution themselves admit that it is nothing more than a theory.

This is an extremely flawed argument that creationists like to use in an attempt to use scientists' intellectual rigor against them. Unfortunately, it relies on a misunderstanding of exactly what a "theory" is.

To quote Stephen Jay Gould, "evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts." You can read the entire thing here [google.com], and I would recommend it for any creationists in the house.

It seems that under the First Amendment, that both theories should be taught, and let everyone decide for themselves.

So any crackpot theory should be taught in schools? Including the ridiculous ones which theorize that many ancient monuments were created by extraterrestrials, or that astrology is valid in any way?

This seems to be yet another instance of the government telling us what we should think.

Kind of a blatant way to appeal to the average slashdotter's distrust of government; so blatant, in fact, that even the most credulous reader will see right through it.

I find it interesting that you would refer to those people who would ban the teaching of evolution in public school "nuts."

I refer to people who would ban the teaching of evolution for religious reasons alone, and in the face of overwhelming evidence "nuts" yes. If there were overwhelming evidence against evolution, then the people who would ban the teaching of evolution would not be "nuts", but that is not the case.

Professors and teachers of evolution themselves admit that it is nothing more than a theory.

First of all, let me clear up this misconception you have about how the word "theory" is used in science. A theory in science is an idea that has been tested many times and its predictions have stood up to experimental results. Theories are generally accepted throughout the scientific community. What you are thinking of is a hypothesis, or an idea that makes testable, but as of yet unsufficiently tested, predictions.

Secondly, let me dispel the other myth you state in that sentence. Evolution is NOT just a theory. It is fact. The fact that the alelle frequency in a population changes over time has been observed time and time again. There have even been numerous observations of speciation (an invidual of one species creating offspring of another species). I point you to the great FAQ at talkorigins.org [talkorigins.org] for a list of the many examples of this.

What is commonly refered to as "The Theory of Evolution" is just a collection of ideas about how and why evolution happen, such as natural selection, punctuated equilibrium, etc. No serious scientist disputes the fact that evolution occurs, the only dispute is over how it occurs.

Creationism is also, admitted by the professors of said doctrine, to also be a theory.

Creationism is NOT a theory. It doesn't hold up in experiments testing its predictions. It is at best a highly improbably hypothesis.

What makes it right for the kids to arbitrarily learn only one of these theories. It seems that under the First Amendment, that both theories should be taught, and let everyone decide for themselves.

What makes it right is that one of these "theories" is religious in nature and basis, and the other isn't. Since SCOTUS (that is, the Supreme Court Of The United States) has ruled that the First Amendment decrees a separation of church and state, the religious "theory" obviously does not belong in a publicly funded school.

This seems to be yet another instance of the government telling us what we should think.

This is in fact just the opposite. It is the government preventing itself from telling us to think a certain way on religious grounds. The government isn't preventing you from sending your children to a religous private school, or from teaching them creationism yourself. But it is preventing the teaching of ideas that favor one religion over another being supported by public funds.

What other theories would you like included? That disease is caused by bad air, rather than viruses? That apples don't fall, they hurl themselves at the ground because they like it more? That a computer contains millions of little demons counting on their fingers?

Professors and teachers of evolution themselves admit that it is nothing more than a theory.

So is all of science. In science you observe the world and come up with an explanation (a theory). Then you see how far that takes you. Theories let you understand how things work and are used to build things. For example, there is a theory of elecricity, which makes it possible for you to read this post.

An important property of a real theory that in principle you can present evidence to falsify it.
What evidence would you present to falsify creationism?

It seems that under the First Amendment, that both theories should be taught, and let everyone decide for themselves.

First Amendment gives you the right to speak for creationims, but it does not give you the right to force others to listen.

Having said that, I wish they would teach both in science classrooms. Just explain the evidence for both: genetics, fossils, geology for evolution and some old book written by ancient men for creationism. Then let the kids sort it out.

How about this: we have the schools _accurately_ teach both evolution and creationism. Evolution is the product of observation of the world, thinking, and gathering more observations to test the theory. Creationism is the product of ancient myths. There are hundreds or thousands of such myths. The set of myths most popular in the US was preserved in books which were written thousands of years ago by men who thought the world was flat, and these books show signs of having been re-written several times...

Me: Uh, sir, why don't you just beat a dead horse?
AftanGustur: Horses don't look like horses on slashdot, you gotta use cows.
Me: What do you do if you want something that looks like a dead cow?
AftanGustur: Ehh, usually we just tape a Beowulf cluster of cats together.

> This particular problem has frequently been pointed out by creationists, but evolutionists have dismissed it as a non-issue. Until now. Now when they have found an answer to the problem, it suddenly makes sense to address the issue.

You seem to be unaware that scientists have been growing insects with extra body segments, legs sprouting from their heads, etc., for decades now. All the quoted text means is that they have found the built-in mechanism for managing this, not that they have suddenly discovered that it is possible.

Thank you for showing the lurkers how bad creationists are about twisting everything around in hopes of discrediting science, and how pathetic that spin control is when you dissect it.

The problem is that creationism in the US is a political movement. Sure they may make a few valid points here and there, but their whole motivation is to discredit evolution, and advance their own social and political agendas. They aren't interested in science or the truth. Addressing their one or two valid criticisms can only take place in to an audience receptive to the it, and not to zealots who aren't interested.

This is the only real way to respond to mobs. Appeal to reason when one is strong, so that the reasonable people in the mob can defect.

In the end, it is reason that should rule, and that's all that matters.

On the other hand, I think a lot of evolutionists are neodarwinistic, they have this idea that everything happened via random mutations and natural selection, which is contrary to all the other processes of life.

I would expect that most people who think clearly about these things wind up "neodarwinists." The point is to come up with an explanation for "all the other processes of life" and we would be commiting classicly flawed logic if we used the-things-to-be-explained as the basis of the explanation.

If evolution depended on the existence of complex processes of life to work, it would be useless and likely wrong.

As it turns out, however, you can explain it all (including reto-viruses, co-operation, and even the first post trolls) as a simple consequnce of random mutation and natural selection.

Your statement is akin to fearing that "a lot of physisists are neonewtonist--they think everything can be explained in terms of a few types of forces acting on a few types of particles." In many cases you want to look at the higher consequences just to keep from swamping in the details, but you shouldn't slip into confusing consequences with causes.

First, the thing to keep in mind is sucess is not being better at anything, success is passing on your genes. If you manage to pass on your genes, you're done. For all intents and purposes, you can drop dead at that point, your job is done. Now it's up to your offspring to procreate. As long as they manage that, the "species" is OK. Just keep poppin' em out faster than they drop dead or get eaten.

Second, nobody said you need to grow a fully formed stomach when there was none before. I've already has this conversation on/. with some guy about the eyeball, I don't want to have it again.
Stop thinking stomach, and start thinking proto-organs, or even single cells that exist symbiotically within another organism. Ameobas don't have stomachs, they have, I dunno, specialised cell groupings that secrete a 'digestive' chemical that extracts nutrients from any external piece of whatever that happens to float by. This is not a "chicken/egg" problem, so stop coming at it from that angle. As for those 999,999 generations of nonworking "stomachs": that took a whole 2 or 3 days of debugging in a pond somewhere to get the right one, way back 600 million yrs ago. After that it was just code tweaking.

What is it with people and evolution, that they can't imagine some slimy chemical mud that has "intent" - in so far as it gravitates toward another chemical gradient (food) - being alive?

Imagine Q or Rod Serling standing next to a small puddle explaining this to you OK? Here we have a pool of chemical x that naturally moves towards chemical y. In a few moments, this chemical soup will undergo a common reaction involving common chemicals. It will become "alive". It will contain a few simple organic compounds that, given some quiet time to themselves, will intermingle and maybe even begin to replicate - the ablity to harvest nearby chemical compounds and assemble them in a *near* mirror image. Hell some of those compunds can be from other "proto-organisms" and we already have predator and prey evolving. Neat huh?

Asking how stomachs and eyeballs formed while imagining them as real functioning eyeballs and assholes is like asking how you get a fully formed modern man equipped with a cell-phone -- from a club-swinging neanderthal. You don't. Because the neanderthal never picked up a club with the express purpose of building a cell-phone. If he did, he would have quickly found that he was without the proper environment to create one, let alone NEED one.

So too, did early life not set out to outfit itself with a stomach, but instead went for the more practical "I just found a new way to eat my food by actively enveloping it instead of passively absorbing it from my environment -- COOL"

what follows sounds like a linux bash but i cant be bothered to clean it up, take what you want. I'm getting tired....
And your comp sci analogy doesnt work either, as building the Linux kernel that way is akin in biological complexity to building a chamaeleon or something from scratch. Try creating a kernel that can "eat", "defend" and "replicate"(sounds like windoze). Your Linux/chaemaleon is wasting time trying to be 10 different species/server tasks. Whereas a flatworm just does what it needs to divide and move on. Maybe you should write the comp sci equiv of a flatworm (haha windoze again), then maybe your flatworm kernel will be able to withstand random mutations?

Any comment that starts off by saying "Ha, damn those creationist bastards, they're all stupid and don't believe in science."...

Creationists don't believe in science. They may find it interesting and accurate in some places, but to believe in creationist is believe that science often relys on erroneous, politically biased information to form incorrect conclusions even after extended periods of time. That's they don't believe science reliably works - they don't believe in science.

Yes, it's unfair to describe creationists as stupid. Mostly they're working from postulates that are alien to scientists.

Intelligent conversation and discussion can only occur when you throw away all your stereotypes before stepping up to the table. Some
philosopher talked about this once, but basically, you are supposed to try your best to approach the situation without making any
assumption about the person/people with whom are you discussing, how it will benefit you, etc.

I believe quite the opposite. Because of science and its ability to give us solid facts, it's wrong to give all views equal credence at the starting line in a scientific discussion. Of course the idea appeals to us because most of us believe in democracy, equality, etc, and in a purely philosophical question like ideas of right & wrong, aesthetics, etc, you'd be in the right. Science, however, is by no means democratic, by which I mean that any idea MUST match known facts. Discussions on evolution are thus NOT philosophical in nature, because they seek to project facts to formulate an idea about the past. The theory being contested is that animals, including ourselves, developed over time through natural selection. Whether this is true, for a scientist, can only be demonstrated and proven with facts. Creationists OTOH choose to use science when it suits them and discard it when it contravenes their religious beliefs.

This leads me to another argument of yours, that creationists are in the majority. That may be so, but the facts do not rely upon consensus, only on veracity through experimentation. Also, the silly pretense that creationism isn't a religious belief is belied by the fact that it relies on a sort of de novo, deus ex machina placement of life on the planet by a higher power, an inherently religious phenomenon. One could argue in response as Richard Dawkins does, that the idea of the development of man over millenia from more basic organisms is infinitely more awe-inspiring than being plopped here by the almighty about 6000 years ago.

Creationism is to some worthy of ridicule, and understandably so. It's a relic of a time when humans looked up at the sky and thought the stars spoke to them, when we didn't understand why the ground shook or the sun turned dark in mid-day. While I don't agree with bashing people's religious beliefs, when they want to use those beliefs to create public policy, or mandate the passing of those beliefs on in schools, in science classes no less, it's only my duty as a scientist and someone true to simple fact to oppose such stupidity, here and anywhere else I see it.